Leica Ultravids (thread contains a variety of topics, optic reviews & other binos)

[Chas Zoss]

Has anyone seen or heard any thing about the new bonoculars from Leica? How do they compare to Zeiss victorys or the Els. thanks Chas

[postcardcv]

I looked through a pair a few days ago - as you would expect with Leica the optical quality is amazing. As for how they compare to other bins - I was very impressed and the fact that they are noticably lighhter weight than the current Leica models should help them to compete with ELs. Shape and look of them is much like the Leica Duovids, they are very comfortable in the hand.

If you get the chance look through them - though be warned you may well be tempted.

[Leif]

I looked through a pair a few days ago - as you would expect with Leica the optical quality is amazing. As for how they compare to other bins - I was very impressed and the fact that they are noticably lighhter weight than the current Leica models should help them to compete with ELs. Shape and look of them is much like the Leica Duovids, they are very comfortable in the hand.

If you get the chance look through them - though be warned you may well be tempted.

There is a first rate comparative review on the Astro Mart birding optics forum. The reviewer reckoned they equalled the Swarovski EL optically and mechanically but with a coarser focus which some people will prefer.

[John Cantelo]

The new issue of 'Bird Watching' - due in the shops on Thursday, I think, has an in-depth and very positive review of these bins. Am I right in suspecting that this desgn has been produced as a direct result of Swarovski's current dominance in the 'most fashionable' binoculars stakes?
John

[Raptor]

And reasonably priced compared to EL's,$1225.00 US, I am awaiting my delivery of 10x42br having just sold my SLC 10X42 I am with out Binos, they cannot get here fast enough! I will post results after using at Eagle Watch, Raptor.

[Al Downie]

I tried them against the 8x32BN, the 10x32BN, the Swarovski 8.5x42EL, Swarovski 8x32EL, money no object, and still walked out with the 'old' 8x32BN's.

I really like the light-but-substantial feel, the rugged build, and the image quality is just superb - in common with the Leica scopes it's a much warmer image than Swarovski optics.

The image quality of the Ultravids I tried (rep's demonstration model) was equally good, but they had a wee bit of play in the focussing control; just enough to make me think the build quality wasn't what it should be, and for that kind of money I'd expect no compromise at all.

I'm very happy with the BN's, and wouldn't consider buying anything else to be an upgrade.

Al.

[John Cantelo]

I've since had a good look at the Ultravids and came away very impresssed. I can't didn't notice any play in the focus wheel and can't believe that leica would produce anything less than 100%. Personally, I find the old 8/10x42s unusable due to their excessive weight & 'anti-ergonomic' design. The new bins, by contrast are superbly balanced, a delight to hold and on the light side for quality 40/42 roofs (although a close focus of 3m is a bit long for butterfly watchers). Optically I still think the Nikon HG roofs have a very, very slight edge, but given their bulk the new Leicas just have the advantage overall. It's a pity that Al's dealer didn't show him the Nikon HGs 8/10x32s which are both cheaper (Wharehouse Express have them for £499!) and, in my view, a little sharper & brighter!
John

[postcardcv]

I agree that he feel in the hand of the Ultravids is far nicer that the BNs - design is very similar to the Duovids (which I use) and have found it very comfortably in prolonged use. I think that over the next year the ultravids will become very popular as more birders get to try them out. Good news if your looking for a bargain as it will no doubt lead to good numbers of BNs and ELs on the second-hand market....

[Raptor]

One thing is for sure, the top three binos in the marketplace, Swaro, Leica, Zeiss, hold value better than all the rest, if you strike a good bargin when first purchasing, take good care, after several years, when you go sell, it is suprising how much you can get for them, in some cases 80% plus. The same applies to scopes. Raptor.

[Leif]

One thing is for sure, the top three binos in the marketplace, Swaro, Leica, Zeiss, hold value better than all the rest, if you strike a good bargin when first purchasing, take good care, after several years, when you go sell, it is suprising how much you can get for them, in some cases 80% plus. The same applies to scopes. Raptor.

You make a good point about quality bins holding their valiue. You did though forget Nikon whose bins are in the same class.

I'm not sure the new Leica's will lead to second-hand EL's coming onto the market. Rather, it looks like Leica now have a binocular that can match anything on the market. I too found the old style Leicas too bulky and heavy.

Anyway, I'm avoiding going anywhere near specialist optics dealers for some while.

[Al Downie]

It's a pity that Al's dealer didn't show him the Nikon HGs

In fact he did, but since they weigh about four times as much as anything else I was trying I left them aside pretty quickly.

The 8x32BN's cost me 599, and are shorter and more compact than any of the new Swarovskis or Ultravids. A bit fatter around the middle, granted, but this suits my shovel-like hands, and the very little extra weight makes them feel reassuringly robust. I wouldn't swap them for any others on the market.

Al

[John Cantelo]

Come on, Al, don't exaggerate! Leica 8/10x32s - 630 gm, Nikon 8/10x32s 715 gm. Weighty for a 32mm instrument, sure, but hardly four times heavier nor excessively heavy for a day's birding. Besides they're still mush nicer to hold!
John

[cjay]

Cannot comment cos Andy Bright says I am biased.

but..... Pm me & I will let you know,

CJ

[paj]

All

I have both the Leica 8x32BN's and Nikon 8x32HG's, both of which optically excellent.
However, the problem with the Nikons is that the focusing wheel is high geared, which means constant refocusing to obtain a sharp image as a bird moves (shallow depth of field).
The nikons are easier to look through and if they fixed this problem they would give the BN's a run for their money, but as it is I find the BN's easier to use.


paj




I've since had a good look at the Ultravids and came away very impresssed. I can't didn't notice any play in the focus wheel and can't believe that leica would produce anything less than 100%. Personally, I find the old 8/10x42s unusable due to their excessive weight & 'anti-ergonomic' design. The new bins, by contrast are superbly balanced, a delight to hold and on the light side for quality 40/42 roofs (although a close focus of 3m is a bit long for butterfly watchers). Optically I still think the Nikon HG roofs have a very, very slight edge, but given their bulk the new Leicas just have the advantage overall. It's a pity that Al's dealer didn't show him the Nikon HGs 8/10x32s which are both cheaper (Wharehouse Express have them for £499!) and, in my view, a little sharper & brighter!
John

[gorank]

In a reliable review (http://www.kikkertspesialisten.no/) the Ultravids are rated as the best 8x42 binoculars. But as you see below the Swarovski EL:s are not far behind. Personally I think that the Ultravids are more handy than the ELs (significantly smaller and a bit lighter). The Ultravid-binoculars might be the ultimate Swarovski-killer....;-)
Result from the review (maximum category rating is 12):
Leica Ultravid 8x42
------------------
resolution 10
contrast 11-
brightness 10-
edge sharpness 10+
field of view with glasses 11+
ruggedness 10+

Swarovski 8,5x42 EL
––––––––––––––
resolution 10
contrast 10+
brightness 10-
edge sharpness 10+
field of view with glasses 11+
ruggedness 11

[Chas Zoss]

gorank, thank you have you seen any thing on the 50mm ultravids?

[gorank]

No, I haven't seen any reviews on the 50mm models yet. But check out this page regularly: http://www.kikkertspesialisten.no/kikkerttest.htm
There are loads of reviews of binoculars to check out there..and I guess all the new Leicas will be reviewed as soon as they are common in the stores here in Scandinavia..at this time, they are very difficult to get hold of...

[Chas Zoss]

Thanks again, but i only read english!

[scampo]

Has anyone seen or heard any thing about the new bonoculars from Leica? How do they compare to Zeiss victorys or the Els. thanks Chas

This month's Birdwatching magazine (I think) reviewed the Ultravids and gave them 9.5/10 in all departments.

[pduxon]

This month's Birdwatching magazine (I think) reviewed the Ultravids and gave them 9.5/10 in all departments.

yup and next months is doing a review of "top" end bins if my memory serves me correctly

[Sleeper]

I have just purchased the ultravid 10x42 after testing quite a few at the BBF at rutland. They seem great for those who wear glasses and the balance, as already noted, is superb. The 10x42,as the EL 10x42s are lighter than the 8x42 (can anyone explain this?)

I have not managed to get a true feel of them yet due to time limiting factors but so far so damn good.

What was really surprising was the fact that it came with a decent strap!!!! Will wonders ever cease.

[william j clive]

Beware bird magazine binocular reviews, Birdwatching is very Leica biased, while Birdwatch are in love with Swarovski. Birdwatching is anti-Nikon. Last year they recommended a compact binocular which when I tried it, I found it suffered badly from flare. Try them all yourself and buy what suits you.

[Sleeper]

William

I could not agree more about trying your own and finding what suits you best. In the past I have made the mistake of not trying Binoculars for myself and they have not suited me personally.

I do find it beneficial to take on board peoples opinions and comment but you do need to suck it and see for yourself.

Regards the magazine bias I am not sure the mags have gone out of there way to like/dislike a particular brand. I only say this as at the end of the day they are tested by real people who have opinions just like the rest of us. I seem to get on better with Leica optics more than with Swarovski (bins and scopes).

[CJW]

Everybody seems to be ignoring the Zeiss Victory II's. IMO they're as good, if not better, than any other glass on the market. Make sure you include them in your trials.

[John Cantelo]

I thoroughly agree with William Clive regarding the importance of trying out binoculars for yourself. I had a good shifty at the new Leica 8x42s and compared them with the Swarovski 8.5x42s and the Swarovski & Leica 8x32s. The Leica Ultravids were undeniably more contrasty, perhaps a shade sharper, a little brighter and had a more yellow bias (presumably an advantage in low light) than the Swarovskis 42mm. On the other hand in some ways the bluish bias of the Swarovskis was more restful on the eye and the very ergonomic design, allowing a grippy, steady one handed use balanced these ‘disadvantages’ out. All these differences, though, could only really be told in a direct comparison so it’s a very close call between the two. It was similarly very close between the two 32mm instruments – I thought the Leicas just shaded out the Swarovskis, but it was very close. It was closer still between Swarovoski’s 8.5x42 and 8X32s; marginally better brightness and magnification against smaller, more handy size and the walk in 8º view of the 32mm glasses. Personally, I could see very little difference, other than a little more brightness, between the Leica Trinovids 8x32s and the Ultravids 8x42s. However, despite the greater weight, the Ultravids were far more comfortable in the hand than even the 8x32 Trinovids (let alone those awful 42mm glasses!). So a final choice rests on the balance you put on these various considerations in the context of your birding style.

However, I think William Clive is being a tad unfair to ‘Birdwatching and ‘Birdwatch’ in his proposition that they are unduly biased towards or against certain makes. As far as binoculars are concerned I think the charge of bias against Nikons is unfounded. The last round up in ‘Birdwatching’ (2002) gave the following scores for 8x42s:
Leica - Design & Build 9, Optical performance 9.5, Ease of Use 9.5 and Value for money 9.5
Nikon – Design & Build 9.5, Optical performance 9.5, Ease of Use 9 and Value for Money 9
Given that at the time the Nikons were nearly £300 more expensive than the Leicas on can hardly cavil the extra .5 given to the Leicas. OK, the extra .5 for the Leica’s ‘Ease of Use’ is questionable, but arguably justifiable by the greater weight of the Nikons and hardly evidence of any great bias. Nor can I detect any real bias with regard Nikon/Leica ‘scopes. If there is a bias in top roof prism bins, then I think it is against the Zeiss Victory 42mm which are given a somewhat niggardly score. On the other hand I think ‘Birdwatching’ does a very good job in bringing to the fore the excellence of various other makes outside the ‘elite’. It certainly does a good job in highlighting the superb value for money of the RSPB’s range of porro and roof prism binoculars. (At which point I should declare an interest in that I work part time for the society, but was of the same opinion before being so employed).

I do think ‘Birdwatch’ could do better is in being more up front with regard to the close link between one of their reviewers and Leica, but I don’t think the charge of bias really sticks. I haven’t got such easy access to details vis a vis ‘Birdwatch’s attitude towards Swaroski and the rest, but I don’t recall any exaggerated bias. Neither do I think we can read too much into a one off disappointment – individual bins/scopes are notoriously variable and it’s always wise, where possible, to compare a range of the same instruments to get the absolute best.

If there is bias in these magazines it is more a matter of downgrading the excellence of some very good porro instruments. This is indicated by the unfortunate absence of either Nikon SEs or Audubon 8.5x44s in the ‘Birdwatching’ review. All things considered, however, I think magazine reviews help us distinguish between sheep and goats even if the final choice has to be our own.

John Cantelo

[marcus]

No, I haven't seen any reviews on the 50mm models yet. But check out this page regularly: http://www.kikkertspesialisten.no/kikkerttest.htm
There are loads of reviews of binoculars to check out there..and I guess all the new Leicas will be reviewed as soon as they are common in the stores here in Scandinavia..at this time, they are very difficult to get hold of...
I was really about to send you a message saying what Chas Zoss. Is that kikkertspesialisten.no site in ENGLISH anywhere? I really love to spend a lot of time looking through it.

[CDK]

John.
I believe that a yellow bias does not give an advantage in low light, this surely would be if it had a blue bias, as the human eye is sensitive to blue light in low light conditions.

I agree with you about the Zeiss especially optically (not sure about the feel), but I was shown (by the people on the Zeiss stand) at this years BBWF the light path through their prism system. The Zeiss roof prism does not contain a mirror which means less light is lost when passing through the prism (perhaps someone from Zeiss could confirm). I think they also said that you do not notice the difference in day, only when the light begins to fade.

[John Cantelo]

A bit off topic, but I'm willing to concede to CDK that the human eye may well be more sensitive to blue light. However, my undertsanding is that since the extra thickness of air light passes through at low angles filters out blue light - hence it looks yellowish evening & morning - a bias towards that end of the spextrum is advantageous at these times. Certainly it's my recollection when looking through various optics at this time that a greenish/yellowish bias aids brightness.

Incidentally although I too would love to see that Norwegian site in English, it isn't too hard to work out the meanings of the various column headings & get the gist of them! John
John

[Bubbs]

Bins; Nikon 10X. Optically excellent. Chiropractors dream. Great bins for those with a very strong neck. Try wearing them in the tropics for days on end with just a t-shirt for padding!

Zeiss Victory10X. Optically excellent. Again great bins if you like focussing every milli second!

Rave reviews for the new Leica's everywhere. ;)

ME. I'll just stick with my faithful 21 year old friend the Zeiss Dialyt 10x40 bt* still brilliant even though showing the signs of old age.......yeah I know they are pretty heavy too. Just can't bear to part from them.

John B.

[Jonathan B.]

This is my first posting to this forum. Let me preface my comments on the Ultravid by saying that I favor 7x or 8x binoculars over 10x. For whatever reason--be it improved steadiness of the image or not--I get more information out of good 7x or 8x binoculars than comparable 10x binos. More than three years ago, after trying all of the high-end binoculars, I purchased my first “serious” birding binoculars--Nikon Superior E 8x32. I have used them heavily since then. I also often use Leica 8x20, especially when my purpose is hiking/walking rather than birding, and these are truly little miracles. And I own Swarovski Classic (porro-prism) 10x40 WM, which I enjoy but do not favor over the others. Since buying the SE I have been looking for a world-class, waterproof and fogproof, roof-prism bino with pop-up or twist-up eyecups that weighs less than 30 ounces and has great ergonomics. This was obviously a difficult assignment.

While traveling on business, I have visited retailers all over the US to handle binoculars and have also had opportunities to try them in the field while birding with other folks. When I finally purchased the SE, I had the opportunity in the store to compare it side-by-side with almost all of the other leading binoculars, and after two hours my last two choices were the SE and the Nikon Venturer LX (known to many of you as the HG). I have since had other opportunities to use the Venturer LX. In the end I did not consider Zeiss ClassiC 7x42, for reasons stated below. More recently I dismissed the Zeiss Victory, because the original model was disappointing on a number of fronts. I admit that I have not handled the improved Zeiss Victory II.

The Venturer LX has superb ergonomics, but I find them heavy and their field of view a bit narrow. Although few people believe it from their appearance, the Nikon SE also has great ergonomics. Importantly though, the Venturer 8x42 is obviously brighter than the SE 8x32. Imagine my surprise when I compared the SE side-by-side for an extended period to the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL, only to conclude that the Swarovski was barely brighter than the little Nikon, if at all. I thought it was my imagination until Stephen Ingraham (Better View Desired) drew the same conclusion. The SE also seemed to be sharper than the EL, though they were very close. Lastly, I could not stand the focusing mechanism in the EL.

I recently had the opportunity to handle the Leica Ultravid 8x42 BL, 8x42 BR, and 7x42 BR, and to compare them to my 8x32 Nikon Superior E. In comparing brightness I held one barrel of my SE to my right eye and one barrel of another glass to my left eye, with both binoculars focused on the same object. I was able to view objects from ten feet to infinity in open sunlight, and objects from ten feet to about forty feet in open shadow under a tent. This is not a scientific method, but it approximates use in the field and I have used it many times over the years.

I handled the 8x42 BL only briefly. The leather covering is attractive, but I found the ergonomics disappointing. I would not buy it, though I am sure it will have its fans. The 8x42 and 7x42 BR models represent serious advances over the older Trinovid line. I hate the feel of the Trinovids, but the Ultravids fit my hands perfectly--the ergonomics are vastly improved. The lighter weight and the balance are wonderful, and the focusing mechanism is silky smooth and precise. I like the focusing mechanism as much as that on the Venturer LX, which is superb, and which until now has had no equal. Even the SE has an excellent focusing mechanism, though it is stiffer than the Ultravid or Venturer.

The color fidelity of the Ultravids is exceptional. Chromatic aberration is minimal to nearly undetectable. I focused repeatedly on extremely high-contrast subjects, including highly reflective metal in open sunlight, and only got a hint of CA. This is not my experience with the Venturer LX, which on several occasions has exhibited significant magenta fringing on contrasty subjects, whereas the SE shows little or none. For those who are interested, the Swarovski porro-prism has outstanding color fidelity, but shows strong reddish fringing on contrasty subjects.

The Ultravid has excellent baffling and barely flares at all when pointed near the sun. This is also the case with the SE, though the Leica 8x20 flares terribly when viewing toward the sun. The field of view in the Ultravids is very flat. Although Leica says the Ultravids are sharp “to the edge of the field,” they have drop-off of sharpness toward the edges that is similar to that in the older Trinovid line. This is also present in the Nikon SE, though the Nikon drops off closer to the edge of the field than the Ultravid does. This does not bother me in the Ultravids or in other glasses that exhibit this trait, because in use, I move the binoculars rather than look toward the margin of the image.

The Ultravid 8x42 did not outperform the Nikon SE 8x32, though this may be attributable to the fact that the example I handled was pre-production. The SE was just as bright and was obviously sharper than the 8x42 Ultravid I handled.

The 7x42 was an entirely different matter. I have formerly used both the Zeiss and Swarovski 7x42s in the field and like them both. As many optics reviewers have pointed out, Zeiss by now should have done something to make their 7x42 ClassiC fogproof, given it pop-up or twist-up eyecups, and improved the armor. The ClassiC is optically great, but for me its eyecups are uncomfortable, and on top of other issues the focusing mechanism exhibits backlash, making a slight tactile “clunk” every time the direction of the focusing wheel is reversed. The Swarovski 7x42 is optically very fine, but it is heavy, the close focus is more than thirteen feet, and the focusing mechanism feels rough.

The Ultravid 7x42 is superb. It is as sharp as the Nikon SE and is obviously brighter. The handling, at least for me, is outstanding. The only feature which I consider outclassed by another bino is the eyecups. They are excellent, but not quite as comfortable as those on the Swarovski EL, which fit my face perfectly.

A 7x42 binocular is not for everybody, but I think the 7x42 Ultravid is clearly one of the ultimate binoculars. I purchased a pair and received them today. They are even better than their first impression. These are truly a great achievement for Leica.

[Raptor]

Hello Jonathan and welcome to this forum. I have just recieved my 10x42 Ultavids, I must concur on your observation of the eyecups and add that they do not turn out as smoothly as the swaros, also I might add that eyepiece covers could be constructed of a stiffer material so that they remove a little quicker, I do not use the objective covers as I find them to be more bother than they are worth, other than that they are truly are superb optics and I am enjoying using them at our www.eaglewatch.ca, Raptor.

[John Cantelo]

Welcome Jonathan & thanks for what I thought was a really excellent summary. I use 8x32 SE binoculars and they are very good. However, I thought the new 8x42 Leicas were just a little sharper, but it's a close call, John

[Jonathan B.]

Welcome Jonathan & thanks for what I thought was a really excellent summary. I use 8x32 SE binoculars and they are very good. However, I thought the new 8x42 Leicas were just a little sharper, but it's a close call, John

John:

First to you and Raptor, thanks for the warm welcome. I have been following several different forums for the past few months, but this seems to be the one that actually has birders who are sharing practical information, rather than theoretical or other things.

I am pleased to hear that the production 8x42 performs like the 7x42, and not like the pre-production 8x42 that I was able to handle (this was at a Leica booth at a birding fair here in New Mexico last weekend). A relative wants me to recommend an "ultimate" all-around binocular, and I will tell her to buy the 8x42. Because the performance of the one I handled was close to my Nikon SE, I didn't think the 8x42 would fill a niche for me, and I do a lot of woodland birding, thus the choice of 7x42.

I used the 7x42 for awhile today and I'm simply amazed by the sharpness, contrast, and brilliance of the image.

[william j clive]

John raises some good points there. He is also a very helpful birder who showed me a Black Brant in Kent a few years ago. I base my opinion of Birdwatching's anti Nikon bias on a telescope review a couple of years ago, when they rated a Nikon 78 ED's optical quality worthy of a laughable 6 out of 10. Having used this scope for a few years, I know better. Taking into account that no two scopes from the same maker are identical in performance, the big Nikon is worthy of a higher rating. OK, the design is dated, it's not waterproof and has no hood. But optically it is a fine bit of kit and compares very well with other top end scopes. Optically. IMHO. In fact, I had an in depth e-mail debate with the Editor about that result, and basically it came down to the fact that they were right, because they knew best! They would never have said otherwise anyway.

Top manufacturers fly magazine testers to exotic birding locations to test their latest products, how could a critical review possibly follow that kind of generosity. Possibly because today's top products are so good that they do not warrant criticism? I wonder if they get to keep the 'used' optics.

I have Swarovski 8.5x42 EL that need two and half turns of twirling from close focus to infinity. You cannot possibly follow a close, perched bird if it takes off and flies away, and maintain the bird in focus. I discussed this in several e-mails with Swarovski. It seems they were designed by a committee, which explains everything really. The new 8x32 EL has focus modified to one and a half turns from close to infinity, a huge improvement. Maybe someone else compained. They have also said I may at some time in the future be able to have the focus modified on my pair. They are excellent optically, but they sure aint perfect.

Anyway, thats the end of my rant.

And thank you, John, for that Black Brant

[Tim Allwood]

Never had a Nikon scope William but I can't believe that review.
Nikon optics have always been sharpest to my eyes. Only reason I didn't get one of their scopes was the 'flask' reputation

On the subject of bins and focussing - has anyone ever beat he old Ziess dialyt 7 x 42? Almost didn't need focussing - their depth of field is so good - I could basically do it all with my eyes.

[mak]

December Issue Birdwatching.
8x Binocular survey.
#1 Leica Ultravid 8x42
#2 Swarovski EL 8x32
#3 Swarovski EL 8.5x42

[John Cantelo]

First, thank you William for your kind (and probably entirely undeserved) comments. You must have met me on a good day :-)! The 6/10 the Nikon is a bit harsh, but I wouldn't have given it much more on my sole experience looking through one - I thought it less good than the 60mm Nikon! Good to see. though, the latest 'Birdwatching' survey at long last includes the Nikon porro 8x32 SE bins. I can't agree with the 7.5 for handling though esp as the 8x42 BNs - the world's most unergonomic 40/42mm bins on the planet - get 8.5 (as I recall anyway - I don't have the article to hand), John

[Leif]

First, thank you William for your kind (and probably entirely undeserved) comments. You must have met me on a good day :-)! The 6/10 the Nikon is a bit harsh, but I wouldn't have given it much more on my sole experience looking through one - I thought it less good than the 60mm Nikon! Good to see. though, the latest 'Birdwatching' survey at long last includes the Nikon porro 8x32 SE bins. I can't agree with the 7.5 for handling though esp as the 8x42 BNs - the world's most unergonomic 40/42mm bins on the planet - get 8.5 (as I recall anyway - I don't have the article to hand), John

Yes it does seem perverse to give the Leica 8x42 BN better marks for handling than the Nikon 8x32 SE. Maybe Arnold Schwarzeneggar was the tester? I tend to disagree strongly with Bird Watching magazine reviews esp. regarding Leica binoculars. I have always found the Leica 8x32 BN to have too much chromatic aberration to be useable and as you indicate the 8x42 BN is an awful shape. I wonder how the Nikon 8x32 HG were rated in comparison to the Leica 8x32 BN given that the former seemed noticeably brighter to my eyes?

Some years ago Bird Watching magazine reviewed the Steiner 10x40 Rocky S binocular and gave it top marks. They were roughly the same price as a Leica 8x42 BA. I tried them and they were very bright but thought they looked soft. They also had excessive chromatic aberration. I compared them with my cheap Nikon 8x40 Egret and could see no more detail. (A Nikon 8x42 HG walked over the Nikon Egrets as expected!) Reviews on the web indicated that the Steiner bins were not even phase coated which would explain the decidedly soft images. I suspect the reviewer was comparing them against his own 10 year old pre-phase coating roof prism binoculars. A year or two later the price halved, reflecting IMO their true worth.

Of course a comparative side by side review performed by multiple testers might be expected to be more reliable and average out the personal foibles of each person.

I think the more significant bias of BW magazine - as mentioned in an earlier post - is the one against porro prism binoculars. Many people buy an expensive pair of waterproof roof prism binoculars for Sunday afternoon wanders around the local nature reserve and a quality porro prism binocular would give better views at half the price. I've been told by several well known UK specialist optics dealers that a porro prism binocular will not give as good images as a roof prism. I think the truth might be that they will not make as much profit, or - to take a more generous attitude - perhaps they have not tried them out themselves. I should add that other UK dealers seemed to be a bit more informed.

[pduxon]

Leif and anyone else

why don't the likes of Zeiss, Swaro, Leica make porro prism bins?

[william j clive]

Leif and anyone else

why don't the likes of Zeiss, Swaro, Leica make porro prism bins?


Swarovski do. They have two models, an 8x30 and a 10x40. Of course, being Swarovski's, they aint what you would call cheap. The 8x30 looks very dated, and when I recently compared them with a more modern looking Nikon 8x30 E2, I preferred the E2. The Nikon is a couple of hundred pounds cheaper if bought from Ace Optics.

John and I will have to agree to disagree about the Nikon 78ED, I used to sea watch with 60 and 78 Nikons mounted side by side on the same tripod, the 60 with a 20x and the 78 with a zoom set to about 40x. The set up worked very well. The wide angle of the 20x for finding, then a switch to 40x to follow the bird. I actually preferred the 60 for its portability, but to my eye the 78 was far brighter. I now use fixed eyepieces only, 25, 38 and 75x. I recently compared the 78 with a friend's new Swaro 65 zoom and found them comparable in good light, the 78 was marginally better in poor light. IMHO, of course.


Clive Jones ( The william j clive is my e-mail address, being a Jones I had to be creative! )

[steverowe]

Clive,

I have a pair of 8x30 Nikons which are very good optically. But, although I've had them for only 6 months, the rubber grips have completely come off. They started by bubbling where my fingers rested and eventually flapped about until I pulled them off. Unfortunately, I bought them in Saudi Arabia, cheaply (£150ish) so there isn't a proper guarantee. Does anyone else have any experience of this sort of thing? Any suggestions as to what glue to use to try to repair them?

Steve

[scampo]

I'd definitely send them back to Nikon UK - the fact they are Nikon is your guarantee of quality not the fact of their being bought in Saudi, I hope. It would be interesting to hear what Nikon UK have to say.

If you do try to repair them you'll definitely invalidate any warranty, though. If you are tempted, rubber and metal stick magically well together with cyanoacrylate adhesive ("super glue") so far as I remember, but the bond is not too flexible.

[steverowe]

I thought of superglue but it makes an instant bond which means you have to line the rubber up accurately as you only have one chance. I think I'll write to Nikon, but I don't hold out much hope of am early answer.

Steve

[william j clive]

Clive,

I have a pair of 8x30 Nikons which are very good optically. But, although I've had them for only 6 months, the rubber grips have completely come off. They started by bubbling where my fingers rested and eventually flapped about until I pulled them off. Unfortunately, I bought them in Saudi Arabia, cheaply (£150ish) so there isn't a proper guarantee. Does anyone else have any experience of this sort of thing? Any suggestions as to what glue to use to try to repair them?

Steve


Steve, I agree with Scampo, send them to Nikon UK and hopefully they will cure the problem. Let us know how you got on.

Was at Dowrog Common in Pembrokeshire last week to see the Hen Harriers coming in to roost and had an opportunity to try Leica Duovids. They were very impressive even in poor light at 12x, as it grew dark. I was surprised to find that they were so hand holdable at 12x, as I do not have the steadiest hands. The weight and ergonomics may contribute to this. If these binoculars had indents at 9, 10 and 11x they might be the ultimate all-round bins.


Clive

[Leif]

Clive,

I have a pair of 8x30 Nikons which are very good optically. But, although I've had them for only 6 months, the rubber grips have completely come off. They started by bubbling where my fingers rested and eventually flapped about until I pulled them off. Unfortunately, I bought them in Saudi Arabia, cheaply (£150ish) so there isn't a proper guarantee. Does anyone else have any experience of this sort of thing? Any suggestions as to what glue to use to try to repair them?

Steve

Steve: I have a pair of Nikon 8x32 SE - bought used - and I doubt the grips would come off. Are you referring to the cheaper Nikon 8x30 E binoculars? I might try superglue if I were in your place but I would be very wary about causing further damage.

[scampo]

Was at Dowrog Common in Pembrokeshire last week to see the Hen Harriers coming in to roost and had an opportunity to try Leica Duovids. They were very impressive even in poor light at 12x, as it grew dark. I was surprised to find that they were so hand holdable at 12x, as I do not have the steadiest hands. The weight and ergonomics may contribute to this. If these binoculars had indents at 9, 10 and 11x they might be the ultimate all-round bins.


Clive

Don't you find them heavy if used without a rest of any kind?

[Leif]

Leif and anyone else

why don't the likes of Zeiss, Swaro, Leica make porro prism bins?

I am told that Leica do not make them because of the difficulty of making them waterproof. Roof prism binoculars use internal focussing. This means that the internal volume does not change, and hence they can be sealed against water ingress. The second reason is the poor close focus. Because the optical assemblies are further apart they tend not to focus so close. I cannot focus close - i.e. 3m - with the Nikon 8x32 SE without closing one eye! The third reason is the shape. Porro prism binoculars tend to be bigger, with the odd dog leg barrel shape. Most people find this less comfortable to hold than an inline roof prism bin.

I presume Zeiss and Swaro have similar reasons, though as noted above Swaro do have some porros, but they are old designs, and the 8x40 have poor FOV and poor close focus.

I have just looked at the latest issue of Bird Watching magazine and the review seems rather good. I think the presence of multiple testers is essential. The 7.5 given to the Nikon 8x32 SE was for design as well as handling. No doubt the lack of waterproofing cost them at least 1 point, which seems reasonable to me. They also have rubber eye tubes which are a pain compared to the push-pull or twist up- twist down one. That would have cost another point. So overall 7.5 is fair.

[steverowe]

Leif,

Yes they are the cheaper EII bins. I decided to leave the rubber off and put it down to experience. I didn't want to be without them for long. I tried to remove the stuck on glue with a brand name glue remover but most of it wouldn't come off. So then I tried to scrape it off with a sharp knife but scraped a bit of paint off . Then I found that my wife's nail polish remover took the glue off easily. Managed to hide the scraped off paint with a permanent marker. I'm telling you all this to show that impatience gets you nowhere.

Steve

[Jonathan B.]

Leif and anyone else

why don't the likes of Zeiss, Swaro, Leica make porro prism bins?

Pete,

I own a pair of the Swarovski porro-prism 10x40 W glasses, which I bought on eBay secondhand but in virtually new condition for a great price. I really don't like 10x binoculars much for birding, but thought I would try them at regional Hawkwatch sites. I used a pair of 8x30 Swarovski porros briefly once and was impressed, so thought I would give the 10x40s a try.

The build quality and finish is high. Swarovski claims their porros are the only nitrogen purged and truly fogproof porros on the market. They are very sharp, but their contrast is less than the Nikon SE, the new Ultravid, and some other great binoculars, so the apparent resolution is diminished slightly. Color fidelity is exceptional. Chromatic aberration is sometimes obvious and appears as a dull red fringe around contrasty subjects. Despite the dated design (the original Swarovski porro in this style, a 7x40, was released in the late 1940s) ergonomics are good, at least for my relatively small hands. FOV is the same as many 10x binos on the market--330 feet @ 1,000 yds.

One helpful feature is that the objective lenses are deeply recessed--about a half inch--which protects them effectively. Eye relief is shallow, making them undesirable for use with eyeglasses. It also causes eyelashes to touch the oculars, which makes cleaning a necessity more often. The folding eyecups are easily removed/replaced.

The seals that make these waterproof are between the ocular barrels and the barrels behind the prism housing. When a glass is new, these are very tight, making focusing difficult. Mine has loosened quite a bit. However the focusing wheel is small, metal, and finely grooved, and focusing in cold weather, either with cold fingers or a gloved hand, is not as easy as on other premium binoculars.

Altogether these are very good and underrated/overlooked.

Leif mentioned some drawbacks of Nikon SE. I personally consider the ergonomics exceptional. But aside from lack of waterproofing and the dated rubber eyecups, Nikon might at least have made the eyecups removeable for cleaning and replacement, like Swarovski and Zeiss have done.

[John Cantelo]

As Clive (sorry about getting your name wrong) has obviously much greater experience of the old 78mm Nikon scope than me. I’m happy to concede that I was probably looking through a ‘lemon’ and his experience is more typical. The one I looked at was obviously less sharp and no brighter than the 60mm model. As I think he pointed out earlier individual instruments do vary quite a bit. In contrast, the new Nikon 82mm is a clear improvement (or at least the one I looked through was!).

As for the bias against porros, I ‘m afraid it extends well beyond magazine pages. I recall having a conversation a few years back with a sales person, responsible for selling an awful lot of bins to birders, which went something like this:-

Me: - Well, of course, technically the porro design is optically superior to the roof prism one.
Sales person: - No they’re not. The roof prism design is technically better.
Me: - No, I think you’re wrong there. Roofs are perhaps more ergonomic and have improved a lot, but technically the optics aren’t as good.
S/P:- No they’re not. I sell a lot more roof binoculars than porros which proves they’re better.
Me:- Why do only roofs, but not porros, have ‘phase coating”?
S/P:- It isn’t worth spending the extra money on porros because they’re not so good as roofs.
Me:- No, actually, it’s because “phase coating” corrects a defect in roof prism binoculars that porros don’t suffer from.
S/P:- No it isn’t. Porros aren’t as good optically as roofs. It just your opinion.
Me:- No, it’s not a matter of opinion it’s actually fact – something to do with the path of the light through the instrument. (Since I’d been reading up on this at the time my response was more technical at the time!)
S/P: - Well, that’s just your opinion. I sell lots of binoculars you don’t, so I know what I’m talking about.
Me:- Well no wonder you sell fewer porro bins as you’re clearly biased about them.
S/P:- (Heatedly) I give unbiased advice! Roof bins are technically better. You don’t sell binoculars so don’t know anything about them, I do.
Me:- Well, lets agree to disagree.
S/P:- No, you’re wrong.
Exit one birder sans new binoculars!

…. this from someone working at an outlet that must be in the top handful in the UK for sales of birding optics!
(PS – last 3-4 times I was there I saw no sign of the person concerned & got much more balanced advice so it’d be unfair to name names!)

As for good porro bins, as I’m concerned the latest Audubons represent stunning value for money – far better than equally priced roofs. However, in the latest 8x42 Ultravids, Leica now has an instrument that is as comfortable to hold and marginally better optically than my Nikon 8x32 SEs. I doubt, though, that this would be the case if a similar amount of money were spent on developing a porro instrument of similar quality. One of the best binoculars I’ve ever looked through was an old pair of west German porro Zeiss 10x50s – superb.

John

[Sandy Martin]

I do think ‘Birdwatch’ could do better is in being more up front with regard to the close link between one of their reviewers and Leica,
John Cantelo

Surely you mean 'Birdwatching' magazine's chief optics man? Birdwatch has very close ties with Swarovski and to a lesser degree, Nikon.

Chat to normal birders you meet and use your own eyes, don't be too taken with those who may have advertising revenue (or direct ££) in the back of their minds when reviewing a product.

Sandy

[laika]

Hello this is the first time I'am writing in this forum. First of all I'am not a birder,but a hunter with interests in optics.
From 1990 to 2003 i had Swarovskis 7x42GA.It had to take a lot of hard use,but served me very well for all these years.This year i wanted to have some more magnification so i ordered at Swarovski 8.5x42 EL and sold the 7x42 .I didn't like the focusing at all so i sold it and ordered a Leica Utravid 10x42BR.Sadly i have wait until near Christmas to get it!! In the meanwhile i needed a good binocular so i ordered a Fujinon 7x50 FMTR-SX2. This porro marinebinocular is of course too heavy for birding and also perhaps for hunting. anyway I'am very satisfied with the optic,very bright and very sharp out to the edge. I rate this Fuji higher than the 8.5x42 EL. Focusing is individual,not a birdes dream,but I'am sure that makes the Fuji even more waterproof than my old 7x42Swarovski. And for the price of a Swarovski 8.5x42 EL i can get 2,5 Fuji's.!!

[Chas Zoss]

Well this thread is bouncing along pretty good now, so have any of you had a chance to look through the 10x 50 mm ultravids? Every thing i have read about the ultravids(in 3 or 4 other forums) only refer to the 42 mm models. I have a 10x50 ultravid on order with Adorama since early October,they received the 42mm models in last week, still waiting for the 50s! thanks Chas Zoss

[Grousemore]

Hello this is the first time I'am writing in this forum. First of all I'am not a birder,but a hunter with interests in optics.
From 1990 to 2003 i had Swarovskis 7x42GA.It had to take a lot of hard use,but served me very well for all these years.This year i wanted to have some more magnification so i ordered at Swarovski 8.5x42 EL and sold the 7x42 .I didn't like the focusing at all so i sold it and ordered a Leica Utravid 10x42BR.Sadly i have wait until near Christmas to get it!! In the meanwhile i needed a good binocular so i ordered a Fujinon 7x50 FMTR-SX2. This porro marinebinocular is of course too heavy for birding and also perhaps for hunting. anyway I'am very satisfied with the optic,very bright and very sharp out to the edge. I rate this Fuji higher than the 8.5x42 EL. Focusing is individual,not a birdes dream,but I'am sure that makes the Fuji even more waterproof than my old 7x42Swarovski. And for the price of a Swarovski 8.5x42 EL i can get 2,5 Fuji's.!!

I'd suggest you find an Optics or Hunting website,as not being a birder would naturally render you unsuitable for Bird Forum.

[william j clive]

I'd suggest you find an Optics or Hunting website,as not being a birder would naturally render you unsuitable for Bird Forum.


Aye, quite right, Grousemoor.

[John Cantelo]

Thanks for the correction, Sandy. I do, of course, mean "Birdwatching" not "Birdwatch". (A bit like field guides it's getting a struggle to coin a distinctive name for any birds orientated magazine.) Whatever bias the noted expert with links to Leica may have, is still think by-and-large he offers sound advice on optics
John

[mak]

Zeiss do make a Porro binocular, 7x50BGAT* and I believe that it is used by the Royal Navy. Possibly a factor why there are not more Porros is purely commercial, certainly in Europe I would have thought that roof prisms sales were much higher, especially in the mid - high price range.
I agree with John regarding his comments on optics, unfortunately I think that comment's like "well we sell more, so they must be best" is common. I would have thought that a good Porro prism has a number of optical advantages against a roof prism, but as with optics there are always trade off's.

[CDK]

Maybe this should not be here as this is a thread for Leica Ultravids, but surely because someone with an interest in hunting makes a post about optics and Ultravids, why tell them that they should find a hunting web site? This is a bird forum and a brilliant one, but the other day on Radio 5 there was talk about the RSPB and the need to cull a number of deer because the numbers of deer in Scotland were destroying the habitat of Capercaille, especially reducing the amount of insects, which the Capercaille feed on.

[scampo]

Here, here. And neither politeness nor kindness ever caused a conflict either. Many Norwegians hunt, and although I could never do that myself, I am not a Norwegian and cannot think like one.

Hope you don't shoot trolls though - they're an endangered species.

[Leif]

Blimey. The comments above directed at laika were a bit rude. Am I alone in welcoming interesting comments relevant to the current thread? FYI My main interest is fungi, birding being something that I took up to kill the boredom of the Winter months. If the head designer at Leica were to post here, would you scare him off if he did not bird?

Paradoxically birders and bunny huggers owe a dept to hunters. In the UK especially there is very little land that is of real value to wildlife, most having been 'improved' for intensive farming. Hunters are one of the many groups of people that give economic value to unimproved land, and hence help it to survive for future generations.

Or are you objecting to the fact that he is a hunter? Well do you eat meat? If so then such an objection smacks of hypocrisy. Factory farmed animals often endure a horrific and short life. Far better to be a grouse living a natural life on a moorland and to be blasted out of the sky, than a battery hen.

Anyway, back on topic, one surprise in the Bird Watching survey is the absence of the Zeiss 7x42 BGAT. This offers top grade optical quality for a bargain price. They are light and comfortable to hold but the rubber eye tubes are a pain and they are not fully water proofed.

[mak]

Leif.
In fairness to Birdwatching, the review was for 8x binoculars with an objective lens of 30mm - 42mm.
They can't win either way, as we as users are sometimes biased by our own purchases.

[Leif]

Leif.
In fairness to Birdwatching, the review was for 8x binoculars with an objective lens of 30mm - 42mm.
They can't win either way, as we as users are sometimes biased by our own purchases.

A fair point.

[Andy Bright]

Re the hunting saga, I think Grousemore was putting forward his personal opinion rather than any Birdforum policy (we don't have any policy as such in these matters). We welcome all comments on optics, as it's all useful input in some way or another to prospective purchasers.
As long as members don't go into detail about their hunting exploits (it is a birding site afterall), they are more than welcome to share their knowledge/experience of binos & scopes (of the spotting variety) with others.
Remember that it is a global site, with members from various cultures.

[scampo]

Leif.
In fairness to Birdwatching, the review was for 8x binoculars with an objective lens of 30mm - 42mm.
They can't win either way, as we as users are sometimes biased by our own purchases.

"sometimes biased" - hmm? "Mostly" is the adverb I'd choose judging from recent postings. But that's human nature, too.

[Grousemore]

My earlier Post was indeed my personal opinion;if it was Bird Forum policy,I would have deleted the Posting.

My opinion remains unchanged,that this is a Birding site and optics are a subsidiary part,whereas Hunting is not.

[Leif]

My earlier Post was indeed my personal opinion;if it was Bird Forum policy,I would have deleted the Posting.

My opinion remains unchanged,that this is a Birding site and optics are a subsidiary part,whereas Hunting is not.

The posting that you objected to was on topic i.e. interesting comments were made about optics. So I fail to see the problem. I sometimes use binoculars for mushroom hunting, so maybe I should keep shtum about that! :)

Anyway, he mentioned Fujinon porro prism binoculars which an example of modest priced porro prism binoculars and are said to have superb optics. Sadly they have individual eyepiece focus which presumably rules them out for birding.

Scampo: What would be examples of user bias? Surely people post their own experiences, which to me is more useful than many magazine reviews. I have owned or used extensively Leica 10x32, Zeiss 8x30 BGAT, Nikon 8x32 SE, Nikon 8x32 HG, Nikon 8x42 HG, Nikon 8x40 Egret, Viking 8x40, Zeiss 8x20 Classic and Swarovski 8.5x42 and certainly have my own favourites from that list.

[pduxon]

My earlier Post was indeed my personal opinion;if it was Bird Forum policy,I would have deleted the Posting.

My opinion remains unchanged,that this is a Birding site and optics are a subsidiary part,whereas Hunting is not.

Grousey -

a) the guy may be a hunter but he may like birds - apparently the two aren't mutually exclusive.
b) Also bear in mind he's expressing himself in a foreign language and a damn sight better than most of the Brits could in a non native tongue - so perhaps you should cut him some slack.
c) you are a moderator and should be a little bit more careful what you say.

[pduxon]

Surely people post their own experiences, which to me is more useful than many magazine reviews.

Why should your or my opinion be any more or less valid than a magazine? At the end of the day if you buy anything on anyones recommendation other than your own eyes you are stark raving bonkers(ok if you are unsure and lots of friends tell you a are better than b). I thought Scampos scope quest proved this rather well.

[Leif]

Why should your or my opinion be any more or less valid than a magazine? At the end of the day if you buy anything on anyones recommendation other than your own eyes you are stark raving bonkers(ok if you are unsure and lots of friends tell you a are better than b). I thought Scampos scope quest proved this rather well.

In my experience magazine reviews seem to have a bias towards roof prism binoculars. The Swift Audubon 8.5x44 are never mentioned AFAIK. Magazines reviews also tend to ignore issues that to me are important e.g. excessive chromatic aberration in the Leica 8x32 BN and Nikon 8x42 HG. Obviously you have to be careful and never accept the word of one unknown person. However, I bought a pair of used Nikon 8x32 SE on the basis of numerous user reviews and was surprised to find that the praise was well justified.

I don't know about you but I find it hard to judge the quality of optics in a store, even one with good viewing facilities. Maybe other people are better than me?

I certainly agree that no-one should buy expensive binoculars without trying out a selection.

[pduxon]

I don't know about you but I find it hard to judge the quality of optics in a store, even one with good viewing facilities. Maybe other people are better than me?

I certainly agree that no-one should buy expensive binoculars without trying out a selection.

Fair point (oh and stark raving bonkers - was a tadge ott don't you think on my part !! I wasn't in the best of humour when I typed that !!)

Testing at a shop etc is difficult.frankly a few days test drive out in the field is what we really need. The Leica red bins strikes me as a really good idea.

[laika]

If some of you don't want me to discuss optics here,well then i can stop.Most birders know much more about optics than most hunters.That's my reason for writing here.And i wanted to be honest about that.Birding and hunting;i don't see why there must be a conflict.BTW i only hunt deer and reindeers.That's my last word in this forum,at least about hunting.

[pduxon]

If some of you don't want me to discuss optics here,well then i can stop.Most birders know much more about optics than most hunters.That's my reason for writing here.And i wanted to be honest about that.Birding and hunting;i don't see why there must be a conflict.BTW i only hunt deer and reindeers.That's my last word in this forum,at least about hunting.

keep posting Laika

[Jasonbirder]

Welcome Laika - please feel free to keep posting!

[scampo]

Scampo: What would be examples of user bias? Surely people post their own experiences, which to me is more useful than many magazine reviews. I have owned or used extensively Leica 10x32, Zeiss 8x30 BGAT, Nikon 8x32 SE, Nikon 8x32 HG, Nikon 8x42 HG, Nikon 8x40 Egret, Viking 8x40, Zeiss 8x20 Classic and Swarovski 8.5x42 and certainly have my own favourites from that list.


What a list of binos - but I suppose if I added up my own list it would be pretty long. I saw some of my best birds with my first "proper" bins - a pair of East German Zeiss 10x50s and I have fine memories of those binoculars. But - they were large, heavy and misted up easily. The Optolyth Alpins I followed them with are still used by my son and are quite superb - he has no desire to change them.

About personal opinions I think what I said was reasonable. For instance, whilst always interesting to read, some of the comments made against Leica and Swarovski have rather surprised me.

I enjoy reading magazine reviews and find them useful but often superficial these days - which is a shame because the testers should have the time and facilities to produce a fuller and more useful review. A panel of reviewers does seem to me to be a good idea.

I remain convinced that it is human nature to feel that the decisions we make are sound, logical, rational, weighed up between the pros and cons and so forth - especially when we have paid a small fortune for a product. We also have a desire to pass on this conviction and this does not always lead to the most objective analysis and commentary to be made - as interesting as it still might be to others to read and consider.

[Leif]

Well - I think what I said was reasonable. Certainly whilst always interesting to read some of the comments made against Leica and Swarovski have been rather surprising.

I find magazine reviews mostly useful but often surprisingly superficial these days - which is a shame because the testers should have the time and facilities to produce a fuller and more useful review. A panel of reviewers does seem to me to be a good idea.

I remain convinced that it is human nature to feel that the decisions we make are sound, logical, rational, weighed up between the pros and cons and so forth - especially when we have paid a small fortune for a product. We also have a desire to pass on this conviction and this does not always lead to the most objective analysis and commentary to be made - as interesting as it still might be to others to read and consider.

I'm sure some people do overrate their bins for the reasons you give. If you search the web you'll find many reviews which are less than fawning and taken as a whole you can build up a rounded feel for a given product.

Mind you reviews on web sites such as epinions should be taken with a pinch of salt as reviewers are paid a small commission. I know because I have earned a massive $5. :king: Similarly I don't trust reviews attached to shops - BVD excepted - for obvious reasons.

[scampo]

I hope you spent that $5.00 wisely, Leif.

You have some truly gorgeous loooking fungi on your website, by the way. Did you photograph all of them?

[pduxon]

[QUOTE=Leif]. I know because I have earned a massive $5. :king: QUOTE]

After your bank cashed the cheque you probably ended up out of pocket!

[Leif]

I hope you spent that $5.00 wisely, Leif.

You have some truly gorgeous loooking fungi on your website, by the way. Did you photograph all of them?

Scampo/PDuxon: I can't spend the money until it hits $100. That's a condition on overseas reviewers. So I won't see a penny. Oh well.

Scampo: Yes I did take all the fungi pictures. Fungi are pretty amazing beasties! There are some even more stunning ones that I have never seen. Clathrus archerii is known as the squid fungus because it looks like a squid, with red tentacles! Cyathus species are known as Bird's Nest fungi because they look like bird's nests and they even contain little white eggs that are ejected when it rains. I could ramble on, but best not in this forum!

[Swissboy]

Never had a Nikon scope William but I can't believe that review.
Nikon optics have always been sharpest to my eyes. Only reason I didn't get one of their scopes was the 'flask' reputation

On the subject of bins and focussing - has anyone ever beat he old Ziess dialyt 7 x 42? Almost didn't need focussing - their depth of field is so good - I could basically do it all with my eyes.


Well, hello to everybody. I just discovered this forum while searching google for Leica Ultravid information. What I have read so far, has been of utmost interest to me. I have one thing right now with respect to Tim's post. I have an old pair of Kowa 7x50s which I used as a kid (I am beyond 60 now), and we used to marvel about this hardly having to focus. Well, the quality is mostly in your eyes, and not in your binoculars, as I can tell now. When I try those still wonderful but heavy 7x50s, I constantly need to refocus, just about as with other binoculars (allowing for the lesser magnification, of course). Thus, it just depends on how stiff one's eye lenses have become whether you need to refocus often or not.

Robert/Swissboy

[Swissboy]

If some of you don't want me to discuss optics here,well then i can stop.Most birders know much more about optics than most hunters.That's my reason for writing here.And i wanted to be honest about that.Birding and hunting;i don't see why there must be a conflict.BTW i only hunt deer and reindeers.That's my last word in this forum,at least about hunting.

Oh, don't be too shy, though. I participated for a long time in a hunters' site on optics, though I never openly said that I was a birder. But the important point is, that we all use optics, and we can share experiences on that level for the benefit of all.

[Swissboy]

I'm sure some people do overrate their bins for the reasons you give. If you search the web you'll find many reviews which are less than fawning and taken as a whole you can build up a rounded feel for a given product.

Mind you reviews on web sites such as epinions should be taken with a pinch of salt as reviewers are paid a small commission. I know because I have earned a massive $5. :king: Similarly I don't trust reviews attached to shops - BVD excepted - for obvious reasons.

Looks like I am trying to catch up a bit: BVD has not posted anything on Leica for a very long time, they have not even reviewed the new small Leica spotting scopes. And, not surprisingly, the shop this site is now attached to, does not carry Leica.

[satrow]

Hi Robert,

Welcome to Birdforums.

(I don't mind a plate of venison stew occasionally!)

Good to see you're 'getting stuck in' already.

Regards,

Andy.

[Jonathan B.]

[/QUOTE] Looks like I am trying to catch up a bit: BVD has not posted anything on Leica for a very long time, they have not even reviewed the new small Leica spotting scopes. And, not surprisingly, the shop this site is now attached to, does not carry Leica.[QUOTE]

Not only did Stephen Ingraham (BVD) fail to cover the new Leica scope, he did not consider the Leica 8x20 BC or BCA when he reviewed compact binoculars, and the Leica is one of the top performers in that class. On the other hand, he ranks the Leica 8x32 among the finest all-around binoculars. He is not the only reviewer who has liked the 8x32 but not the other Trinovid BN Ultras. The Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, in its now dated review, "Desperately Seeking Binos," had the same conclusions about Leica.

The Ultravid is unquestionably one of the very finest binoculars on the market, and it will be interesting to see how it fares with these reviewers.

[Chris Zorro]

Just thought I'd add my two-pennyworth...

Over the years I have moved ever upwards through binoculars, reaching my zenith with the purchase of a pair of Bausch & Lomb Elite 8x42s some five years ago. They served me well, proving to be supremely versatile in meeting my varying demands: birding, walking companion and sweeping the skies at night. They were sharp almost to the edge of the field, very comfortable to hold, very close focusing. Sadly, they met their demise a month or so ago and I had to look for a replacement.

For me weight was an important criteria and I had decided to stay with the 8x42 configuration, but I was prepared to be flexible. The choice, for me, was quickly reduced to five alternatives: another pair of Elites, Nikon LX, Zeiss Victory II, Swarovski EL and Leica BN. Much research was done on the internet and use made of such sites as BetterViewDesired (more of that later) and www.kikkertspesialisten.no.

However, early in the search I was shown the Nikon 8x32 LX (HG in the UK) and was stunned by the abilities of such a small package. Optically they were amazing and, combine this with light weight and near perfection in the hand, I was sold on them and bought a pair there and then. But honeymoon period was relative short as, in twilight conditions, I discovered they were no match for my old Elites, and at night they couldn’t even show the moons of Jupiter. So they went back and the search continued.

Elites are rapidly becoming ‘yesterday’s choice’ (“special order only”) and so I was looking again at those listed above. The Leica BN was soon ruled out by virtue of its bulk – I got cramp between my thumb and index finger in 10 minutes flat! The Zeiss, whilst being a nice light package and optically good (but not brilliant), have angled eyecups which stopped my spectacles from resting comfortably against them. So that was them out of the competition.

The 8x42 Nikons were of the same optical and build quality as their smaller 8x32 sibling but, and for me it was a Big But, they are Heavy. Never mind words like ergonomics, balance or weight distribution, at 980 gms they were just too much to have hanging around my neck for a full day’s walking.

That left the Swarovskis. Overall they were probably the best, aided by that little extra magnification. Optically bright, contrasty and with good full width sharpness (although with some colour fringing at the edges) they seemed to represent the end of my search. But the one thing I could not get used to was the 2.5 turns it took to get from close focus to infinity – I was used to the speed and accuracy of the Elites. So, now what?

Well, it was at this point that I remembered the Leica Ultravids which I had earlier dismissed as being too expensive. The long-suffering salesman had them in stock and all the other contenders were brought out again and comparative testing recommenced. Picking the Leica up immediately revealed their ergonomic qualities – the thumb ridge guided my hands into place and my index finger fell naturally onto the focus wheel. Open the hands and let them rest on the thumbs and they are exactly at their point of balance. Open the focus wheel to focus either the left or right eye to make the dioptre adjustment, click it closed, note the setting on the scale and they are ready for use.

The eyecups screw up/down with a click-stop in the down position and two stops in the up. With my spectacles they are somewhere in between, but they stay exactly where I want them. With a fov of 7.4 degrees they provide a view that is the equal to all the top grade alternatives (and wider than the Nikons). In the end the choice, for me, was the Leica and the Swarovskis and there was very little to choose between them, except that the Leicas are discernably brighter. That, together with their quicker focus and smaller size, was enough to decide me to pay the extra (slightly more than the Swarovskis) and I bought them.

Weighing 770gms (27.5oz) they are not the lightest of the bunch but with the Nikon-provide contoured 42mm neck strap I have already walked with them for hours, hardly noticing their presence.

Now, after 4 weeks of everyday use in all conditions I have nothing but praise for them. In bright light they are brilliant and contrasty, in low twilight they are better than my old Elites and at night stars are sharp points of light. I have my own version of BVD’s NEED test using the back of a 10 ukp note and the Leica was a full 10 inches better than the Nikon 8x32s. As for chromatic aberration, a full moon, even when viewed at the edge of the field, displays no colour fringing at all. None! The only time I miss my Elites is close focusing. At 2.3m the Leicas are one of the poorest performing of all those compared.

And one other comment, which may reflect their build quality. My eyes, with spectacles, are just about perfectly balanced and with all the other binoculars the dioptre adjustment was always a small way +/- from zero. But on the Ultravids it is dead centre. If I have one criticism, it is with the smoothness of the focus wheel; it is not as silky smooth as the Nikon. However, this may reflect the lubricant used as, when the temperature dropped to –5C the Nikon becomes stiff. The Leica, on the other hand, claim their binos are good down to –25C. So, into a freezer bag and into the freezer overnight at about –20C and in the morning the focus is still easy. Even the lens caps are a snug fit that stops condensation forming on sub-zero lenses.

I await BetterViewDesired’s review of these with some interest, but will not hold my breath as I note that the website has not been updated since October 2002 and Leicas have not been reviewed since the BA in December 2000. It is curious to note that Simpson Optics (BVD’s sponsor) do not sell Leica although they do sell every Nikon/Swarovski/Zeiss going. Is there any correlation between that fact and the awards of Reference Standard/BVD/BB status? I’m sure there isn’t.

Overall, it is my opinion you cannot buy a better 8x42. With a 5/30 year guarantee they should outlast me (and my son has already requested they be left to him in my will). Nuff said!

[Tim Allwood]

Hi all

with regard to my earlier post the Zeiss 7 x 42s hardly need focussing because of their amazing depth of field nothing to do with the age of your eyes as suggested above!

never unstood birders going on about one pair of bins being 50 grams heavier than another when they're carrying huge and hefty scopes most of the time......

[Swissboy]

Not only did Stephen Ingraham (BVD) fail to cover the new Leica scope, he did not consider the Leica 8x20 BC or BCA when he reviewed compact binoculars, and the Leica is one of the top performers in that class. On the other hand, he ranks the Leica 8x32 among the finest all-around binoculars. He is not the only reviewer who has liked the 8x32 but not the other Trinovid BN Ultras. The Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, in its now dated review, "Desperately Seeking Binos," had the same conclusions about Leica.[/QUOTE]


I own a pair of 8x20s, I have had them for the last 4 years. They are close to perfect as a pair of binos that you simply have with you all the time. I had a pair of the predecessors which never suited my bespectacled eyes. But the present pair is fine, with excellent optics, as far as I am concerned. Of course, you don't want to compare them with a 32 or 42 mm objective type. But of what use are those sitting at home. At the same time I use these little beauties for cultural events like concerts where one does not like to show up with a "field" instrument. And, last but not least, they are my spare pair on all the extended travels where just the thought of having to do without any binoculars gives you the creeps.

I also own one of those much praised Leica 8x32 Trinovids. I used to be quite happy with them. Meanwhile, they do show some wear, and one of the barrels shows an ever so slight "fogging". Instead of going for another expensive repair, I think I'd rather go for a "replacement" (without any real intention to get rid of the old pair, though). I never liked the feel on those Trinovids, which resulted in my trying to file off some of the ribbing on the bottom side. This would now mean that I would hardly be able to sell them at a decent price, anyway. So I may just as well keep them in order to equip another one of the windows for immediate use. My - still undecided - question is now whether I should again get a pair of 8x32 (I'd have to wait a bit longer if I decide to get Ultravids). They are so light weight, which helps my neck a lot. On the other hand, those 8x32s were decidedly too dark in the tropical rain forest of Peru. Thus, I now tend to consider one of the 42mm bunch.

Finally, we also own a pair of Zeiss 10x40 Victory (I). They are mostly my wife's, and she likes them a lot with their very bright view. And I am quite happy using them, too, except for those well known problems like flares and strap attachment. However, my brother also owns one of them,and they already look very much worn. That rubbery outside sure does not seem to last very well under heavy use. Thus, that is one reason that I do not consider the Victory II now. The second one being that I very much like the higher contrasts of the Leicas.

[Jonathan B.]

And one other comment, which may reflect their build quality. My eyes, with spectacles, are just about perfectly balanced and with all the other binoculars the dioptre adjustment was always a small way +/- from zero. But on the Ultravids it is dead centre. If I have one criticism, it is with the smoothness of the focus wheel; it is not as silky smooth as the Nikon. However, this may reflect the lubricant used as, when the temperature dropped to –5C the Nikon becomes stiff. The Leica, on the other hand, claim their binos are good down to –25C. So, into a freezer bag and into the freezer overnight at about –20C and in the morning the focus is still easy.[/QUOTE]


The diopter adjustment on my Ultravid 7x42 is not as "dead on" as Chris Zorro's. My Nikon SE and Leica 8x20 are both set properly at zero, but my Ultravid has to be set at +1.25 diopters. One might think this is due to an imperfection in manufacture, though it makes little difference, except perhaps for another user who might need +3 diopters to use them effectively. But since I have become addicted to their feel and performance, I don't think anybody else will ever pry them from my hands.

As for Chris' comments on focusing mechanisms, he is quite right. The Nikon SE's focusing wheel stiffens considerably in cold weather, but the Ultravid is completely unaffected by the cold.

[Chas Zoss]

Has any one looked through the 50 mm ultravids yet?

[scampo]

Birdwatching is anti-Nikon.

Having now chosen a new Nikon ED82 scope I, certainly Birdwatch magazine's review of this scope, whilst very positive indeed if you read carefully, seems quite carefully slanted by the inclusion of some some pretty irrelevant but negative comments that simply don't bear out in practice.

[Tim Allwood]

yes Scampo

although never had a pair until quite recently it has always been clear to my eyes at least that Nikon bins and scopes have the best glass and coatings. Only never got a scope of theirs because of the 'flask' reputation which I guess is not the case now?

I'd still quite like one of those Nikon Ed11 60 mm jobs - they were so good, and light too

Don't put any store by any review in the birding press - just read some of the book reviews - very shallow - bins I guess likewise

[scampo]

As an English teacher with a real fascination for the way language can be used, I even thought about asking my A-level students to analyse two reviews from that magazine just to see how cleverly English can be very subtly slanted. The Nikon ED82 scope review was I believe, rightly complimentary, yet contained just sufficient (but in practice wholly irrelevant or highly personal) negative comments - which seem not to occur with certain other brands. Intentional or not we'll never know.

[Swissboy]

As an English teacher with a real fascination for the way language can be used, I even thought about asking my A-level students to analyse two reviews from that magazine just to see how cleverly English can be very subtly slanted. The Nikon ED82 scope review was I believe, rightly complimentary, yet contained just sufficient (but in practice wholly irrelevant or highly personal) negative comments - which seem not to occur with certain other brands. Intentional or not we'll never know.

Would you care to give us an example, please? I assume you can't just copy the whole thing here, but it is difficult in Switzerland to get hold of the article.

By the way, even as a biologist and non-native English speaker I try to get into the finer distinctions of the language. I do teach two weekly hours of Biology in English to a small group of students, and this topic is by no means neclected. Well, sorry, that is now off the point, but it does matter how we all perceive the info we find.

[scampo]

It is impossible to show the effect of the apparent or perceived slant without the context provided by the whole article - and copyright probably forbids me posting this, but here is a taster:

The October 2003 Birdwatch review was given an ambiguous headline "Nikon Gets Heavy" but it seems to me that for a high quality 82mm scope the Nikon is not especially heavy when compared with its typical competition, viz. Leica, Zeiss and Opticron scopes are all around the same weight or even heavier. The statement: "while light-gathering ability is of the top order, this is a high price to pay in terms of weight. " then becomes rather meaningless. The Nikon is a very compact design indeed - a major and unusual point in its favour but ignored.

The lens cap - so very important! - was described: "Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the cap for the objective lens, which was next to useless and wouldn't stay in position at all". The cap on my scope and the others in the shop fits well and tightly.

Then the optics: "One other gripe is the relatively narrow field of view of just 33m at 1,000 m, which seems a little poor for a wide-angle eyepiece...". Anyone who looks through this eyepiece in comparison with other leading scopes will surely be impressed with the field of view it offers. The reviewer chose the 38xW eyepiece (a high magnification if you are interested in a very wide field of view) and, from what I can tell, the Nikon view at 38x is actually 3 metres wider than, for example, the superb Zeiss 85*T at 40xW.

Buried somewhere in the middle of all this was a comment about the Nikon's optical performance:

"As with other Nikon products.... the optical performance.... was faultless and it performed outstandingly... give superb colour rendition."

And on to the stay-on case: "Other accessories include a rather pricey stay-on case for protection..". The case seems to be similarly priced to all others and is superbly made, even rather swish.

And to end the review, back to the dubious weight issue:

"Ultimately, for both birders and digiscopers who are searching at the highest-quality end of the market, the Nikon ED82 models should prove to be a hit, particularly for those willing to make the effort to carry a little extra weight around to obtain."

[Leif]

Would you care to give us an example, please? I assume you can't just copy the whole thing here, but it is difficult in Switzerland to get hold of the article.

By the way, even as a biologist and non-native English speaker I try to get into the finer distinctions of the language. I do teach two weekly hours of Biology in English to a small group of students, and this topic is by no means neclected. Well, sorry, that is now off the point, but it does matter how we all perceive the info we find.

There's a non-subtle example from the big optics tests done by Bird Watching magazine last year. The B&L Elite 8x42 were described as having a good field of view. The Nikon 8x42 HG were described as having a disappointing field of view. In fact both had, and still have, the same field of view.

It's odd comparing the 2002 test with the recent one. The Leica 8x42 BN was described as chunky but "well balanced and very comfortable to hold". This year it is "looking dated", and let down by "large size, chunky shape and heavy weight" and "not for small hands". All you Leica 8x42 BN owners had better upgrade PDQ before your binoculars are described as "makes a good paper weight" ...

[scampo]

I agree, Leif - some of the comments in that latest review were nothing less than odd even to someone not looking for evidence of slant.

[scampo]

The problem maybe is that we all tend naturally to support our own choice and prefer the scope we have bought - so when asked to review another scope we might subconsciously naturally lean our view against a different make. Maybe some reviewers are perhaps falling into this trap?

[pduxon]

It's odd comparing the 2002 test with the recent one. The Leica 8x42 BN was described as chunky but "well balanced and very comfortable to hold". This year it is "looking dated", and let down by "large size, chunky shape and heavy weight" and "not for small hands". All you Leica 8x42 BN owners had better upgrade PDQ before your binoculars are described as "makes a good paper weight" ...

What's so unusual? The same happens in hifi mags as well. Lots of folks complain about the RSPB Birds mag being "an advertisement rag" but that's why its free, lets be honest Birdwatch and Birdwatching depend heavily on advertising. I don't imagine Leica would be impressed if they said "well marginally better but not really worth trading your BN's for" now would they?

[scampo]

Free? How much is your subscription, Peter?

[pduxon]

Free? How much is your subscription, Peter?
Well Stephen, the RSPB CLAIM that the mag is paid for by advertising not out of subscriptions!!

[scampo]

That's a slight non sequitur, I think. You can't get it without subscribing...

[pduxon]

You know what they mean!!

[Swissboy]

Thanks Scampo, I agree, that this text is very much biased against Nikon. From the pictures I have seen the new type sure looks very compact. I own the 60mmED III mainly as a travel scope while I use a 77mm Apo Leica when weight is not so important.
My Nikon did have a problem with the objective lens cap. It came off often during use and I finally lost it somwhere in the field. I have since replaced it by one from a Pentax 300mm tele lens. My main gripe with the handy little Nikon is the zoom lens. I still have the old version of the 20-45x that is not fully multi coated. Does anyone have any comparative experience with the various Nikon zooms? (Well, I am afraid this is the wrong thread, I may have to start one in the scope section.) I am debating about getting one of the newer ones. On the other hand, I once compared the old and the new Leica 20-60x zooms and I could not find any difference.

[Tim Allwood]

dont read what those divs write people

I long ago stopped reading both popular non-sub birding mags

the optics reviews aren't worth the paper they're written on and don't get me started on the book reviews......

I don't have a Nikon scope (so could be considered objective) but I'm pretty sure the optics are damn fine if not the best!

[scampo]

Which magazines do you recommend, Tim?

[dogfish]

[QUOTE=Tim Allwood]dont read what those divs write people

I long ago stopped reading both popular non-sub birding mags

the optics reviews aren't worth the paper they're written on and don't get me started on the book reviews...... SNIP QUOTE


The big problem with optics reviews in British bird mags is that they will not give an honest opinion that a particular pair of bins or scope is better or worse than its rivals in the same price band. This is what we as consumers want (though we do of course realise that it's all a bit subjective, particularly at the top of the range). I assume the reason we don't get it is that the editors don't want to offend the optics manufacturers, who take out those lucrative full-page colour ads.


For more honest reviews I recommend the Finnish magazine Alula. I notice that Stephen Ingraham, compiler of the excellent Better View Desired website, has taken up a post with one of the big optics manufacturers and the site has not been updated for ages.

[william j clive]

Birdwatching's anti-Nikon bias.

Succintly put by both Leif and Scampo.

I rest my case ;o)

[scampo]

"My main gripe with the handy little Nikon is the zoom lens. I still have the old version of the 20-45x that is not fully multi coated. Does anyone have any comparative experience with the various Nikon zooms?"

Robert

The Nikon MCII zoom eyepiece is a new design (Nikon say it was created for the ED82, on which it is 25-75x, but on your scope it would be 20-60x owing to its different focal length). Unlike the old lens it is waterproof and multicoated. The views through it are excellent but the field of view, like all zooms, is restricted compared to the 30xW I also use. My son uses a Swarovski 65ED and its zoom is probably the best there is yet in almost every respect the Nikon is clearly its equal - the only exception is that the Swaro zoom does have a slightly wider field of view; but then the Nikon goes up to 75x - you win some, you lose some.

[Swissboy]

Steve

That's an interesting combination you have, Nikon plus Swarovski to compare! So you think I would definitely upgrade my ED III with a new ocular lens. I was debating whether I should try to sell the Nikon and get one of the other small scopes assuming that they ought to be another generation ahead. Meanwhile, I discovered the Alula test (the first one I saw that had the Nikon scope included) which convinced me to explore another route by upgrading the ocular side only. I must say that in 1999 I had my Nikon along on a trip to Ecuador, and a friend had his Leica Apo 77 along. We tried to identify a raptor under very difficult light conditions (a mix of mist and looking against the light). And under those conditions I felt that my scope had performed poorly compared to the Leica. That was the reason I considered a change in the long run. (At the time Nikon was the only top end manufacturer of small scopes.)

And now there is the question of 20-60x vs the one that goes only to 45x (which I think is enough for a 60 mm objective diameter).

Robert/Swissboy

[Tim Allwood]

and at the end of the day how much difference does it make if you got new Swarovski's or old Zeiss? A massive Leica or a small Nikon.....will you find more birds or ID more birds? Seems to be coming a bit of an obsession.

People will begin to talk: big scope....small...... ;)

some of the best birders use old kit, sometimes very old kit!

[Jane Turner]

I think there is some difference... I have trouble using my old bins...which are dotted about the house.... perhaps its just a habituation thing in that with a few hours use I'd redjust to the slight milkiness and rolling edges of my old Dialyts.

As I said somewhere else.... today...I think its scopes that have changed most. I still have my old Heutle and its really only useful for repelling scallies at the gate


........Big scope....small..... turning circle ;)

[Andy Bright]

A very interesting thread but it's now well past 100 posts, this makes it very unwieldly for many people to navigate. Any chance of winding it up over the next few days....Please start a new thread if you wish.
Regards,
Andy.

[Swissboy]

Seems to be coming a bit of an obsession.

You are certainly correct on this one, but then we all have our special emphasis within the hobby. Or maybe more correctly, a hobby within the hobby. I could list more of these for myself, and they are less costly than the one we are discussing here.

[scampo]

and at the end of the day how much difference does it make if you got new Swarovski's or old Zeiss? A massive Leica or a small Nikon.....will you find more birds or ID more birds? Seems to be coming a bit of an obsession.

People will begin to talk: big scope....small...... ;)

some of the best birders use old kit, sometimes very old kit!

"Obsessed"? I can see why you make such a comment but I think you'll agree that you're being too general and maybe even unfair. I used "old" kit for decades until this year when owing to having some money left to me in my mother's will, I bought some new kit as an enduring reminder of her. In the same way, my son bought his first scope - the Swarovski.

Robert's thoughts are entirely sensible and valid - the old Nikon zoom did not perform well even though the EDIII is still a superb small scope. The new 20-60x / 25-75x zoom is a different design and might be the best option for him.

And when you talk of "old kit", the most frequent I see about is Kowa's TSN 1 - 4, and that was mightily expensive when it was first purchased. Who now uses a draw tube Optolyth, I wonder - once the bee's knees? I haven't seen one in years.

[Tim Allwood]

yes, I'm usually general and often unfair Scampo - no complaints there! o:)

I've got nice newish Nikon bins that perform as well as any Leicas and Swaro's but I still find myself taking out my old Zeiss 7 x 42 dialyts these days. The field of view, light gathering, construction and resolution are just incredible. They've been all over the world, deserts, mountains, rainforest with not a single problem

And recent talk of Optolyth Alpins and Zeiss Jenoptem 8 x 30s made me think. These are seriosly old kit but still perform well enough and strangely are lighter than todays bins!

[Tim Allwood]

Which magazines do you recommend, Tim?

Why, BB of course Scampo! and Birding World is pretty damn fine at times too, once you get past the recent sightings stuff.

...and the New Musical Express and Private Eye on a religous basis

If you're after entertainment though the UK 400 club mag is worth a punt ;) and marginally better than HELLO!

[scampo]

"People will begin to talk: big scope....small...... ;)"

That's why I went for the compact Nikon , Tim - I often see guys walking along with their enormous long Leicas sticking out proudly and my thoughts turn to just those you were suggesting. What else is one to think??

[scampo]

Why, BB of course Scampo! and Birding World is pretty damn fine at times too, once you get past the recent sightings stuff.

...and the New Musical Express and Private Eye on a religous basis

If you're after entertainment though the UK 400 club mag is worth a punt ;) and marginally better than HELLO!

NME died a while back, didn't it, Tim? I notice an NME "annual" in the shops, though. Melody Maker was far superior :-)

[scampo]

Now you'll have to excuse me, Tim - what's BB? The only BB I know is a lady called Bridget.

[Tim Allwood]

Scampo!

that's almost a heresy!

BB is British Birds

NME is still going strong

[scampo]

Sorry, Tim - Loughborough's the backwoods you know. I did work it out but too late - should've left off the beaujolais a bit sooner, just 'cos no one else liked it didn't mean I needed to drink the whole bottle myself...

Oh well!

[Tim Allwood]

a friend of mine was onced asked by an Aussie for directions to Loogaburooga.......

[Swissboy]

a friend of mine was onced asked by an Aussie for directions to Loogaburooga.......

Ok guys, I think Andy is right that this thread should come to an end. Wasn't it originally about Ultravid binoculars? Well, I take part of the blame for having steered it into a different direction. But I got a lot of most helpful info out of it on the way, thanks.

And for those who can't turn off their dirty mind, how about contemplating the use of a Tele Vue 85? ;)

[scampo]

There are longer threads - and he did say in a few days...

[mak]

Although I do not agree with some magazine reviews and the way they are written, I think it is unfair to say that those involved are divs. Some are very knowledgeable on optics, and there are possibly reasons why one has a bias to one model or another (look at this thread and many like it). No doubt a good review helps sales, and how many buy as a result of someone writing a positive article, and convincing themselves that this must be the bino to be seen with. What is an honest review? Why not just enjoy the bino that you currently use.

[Chas Zoss]

Although I do not agree with some magazine reviews and the way they are written, I think it is unfair to say that those involved are divs. Some are very knowledgeable on optics, and there are possibly reasons why one has a bias to one model or another (look at this thread and many like it). No doubt a good review helps sales, and how many buy as a result of someone writing a positive article, and convincing themselves that this must be the bino to be seen with. What is an honest review? Why not just enjoy the bino that you currently use.
When i started this thread it was to learn about the LEICA 50MM ULTRAVIDS, and every time i inquire about them i get no useful information, so lets end this and when i get my LEICA 50MM ULTRAVIDS i will report back! Chas Zoss

[scampo]

What a wonderful thing these threads are, Chas; and many of us have found this one very interesting and entertaining. Not you, though, it seems - and you started it, too! :C . Ah well, such is life on the Internet with all its freedom. Many threads seem to have a habit of taking on a life of their own! Just maybe asking about the quality of one of the most expensive and best pairs of binoculars in the world resulted in this kind of thread, eh?

[Chris Zorro]

<quote>The big problem with optics reviews in British bird mags is that they will not give an honest opinion that a particular pair of bins or scope is better or worse than its rivals in the same price band<unquote>

Another problem is their system of grading for value for money, where they use the RRP as the arbiter and not the price they can be bought for. A good example is the Swarovski 8.5x42 which they cited as £1032 but are generally available for about £729.

[mak]

When i started this thread it was to learn about the LEICA 50MM ULTRAVIDS, and every time i inquire about them i get no useful information, so lets end this and when i get my LEICA 50MM ULTRAVIDS i will report back! Chas Zoss

Chas.
In the UK, I understand that the Leica 50mm Ultravids, are not available. I have spoken to a number of UK Leica dealers, and they have the 42mm models, but not the 50's. No time given for availability.
I suppose it still does not help you.

[Chas Zoss]

Chas.
In the UK, I understand that the Leica 50mm Ultravids, are not available. I have spoken to a number of UK Leica dealers, and they have the 42mm models, but not the 50's. No time given for availability.
I suppose it still does not help you.
MAK, I am being told to expect them after newyears (when ever that is) in the USA thank you for the on topic information! Chas

[dogfish]

[QUOTE=Chris Zorro
Another problem is their system of grading for value for money, where they use the RRP as the arbiter and not the price they can be bought for. A good example is the Swarovski 8.5x42 which they cited as £1032 but are generally available for about £729.[/QUOTE]

True. This type of unfair comparison was pointed out on the UKBN group a while ago in a discussion about a previous Birdwatching magazine optics survey. Steve Dudley conceded that it was a fair point and said the magazine relied on prices submitted by the manufacturers. It has happened again in this magazine, and again, Swarovski suffers in comparison with Leica. It makes one a little cynical.

[Leif]

[QUOTE=Chris Zorro
Another problem is their system of grading for value for money, where they use the RRP as the arbiter and not the price they can be bought for. A good example is the Swarovski 8.5x42 which they cited as £1032 but are generally available for about £729.

True. This type of unfair comparison was pointed out on the UKBN group a while ago in a discussion about a previous Birdwatching magazine optics survey. Steve Dudley conceded that it was a fair point and said the magazine relied on prices submitted by the manufacturers. It has happened again in this magazine, and again, Swarovski suffers in comparison with Leica. It makes one a little cynical.[/QUOTE]

I was told by a salesman at InFocus that Leica give a low margin (i.e. RRP is close to actual selling price which in turn is pretty much controlled by Leica) which is why they won't sell them.

It also doesn't help that for many years each review would have its own categories e.g. Optics, Useability, Build and Value on week and then Optics, Design and Handling, Build Quality and Value the next week.

BTW Kind of keeping on thread, I wonder how the new 50mm Leica compare to the Zeiss 8x56 Victory which have a wonderful spec!!!

[CDK]

BTW Kind of keeping on thread, I wonder how the new 50mm Leica compare to the Zeiss 8x56 Victory which have a wonderful spec!!!

The Birdwatching review was pretty poor on the 8x56 Victory. It would be interesting to see how they compare when they do a review on the Ultravid 50mm model. Surely with objectives this size, the benefits must be at dawn or dusk, and then it must be the optical performance in low light and the type of prism used that would be beneficial.
I would like to know what the manufacturers think about the reviews, as no doubt they actually have the "REAL" tested figures for binoculars. All of their R&D can go up in smoke when a negative review is published, as sales must be affected.

[Leif]

The Birdwatching review was pretty poor on the 8x56 Victory. It would be interesting to see how they compare when they do a review on the Ultravid 50mm model. Surely with objectives this size, the benefits must be at dawn or dusk, and then it must be the optical performance in low light and the type of prism used that would be beneficial.
I would like to know what the manufacturers think about the reviews, as no doubt they actually have the "REAL" tested figures for binoculars. All of their R&D can go up in smoke when a negative review is published, as sales must be affected.

The Bird Watching review last year gave the Zeiss 8x56 Victory top marks for optics, and dreadful marks for ease of use, presumably due to weight. In fact they gave all big binoculars low marks for ease of use so I guess they are going by birding criteria.

I believe the Royal Navy use Zeiss 7x50s for searching at dawn and dusk where they have the edge. I suspect such large objectives are useful at dawn and dusk and at night for skywatching, but only if your iris can dilate enough! For owl watchers and night owls maybe?

[tonrot]

Hello -- I'm new to the site, but thought that i would add my 2 cents to this thread. I have been using teh 8.5 ELs for over a year now and just love them. I was very interested to have a chance to conduct a very unscientific field comparison of my 8.5's to the new 32 EL and the 42 ultravids. The result was shocking: the ultravids and the 8.5's were virtually indistinguishable in terms of brightness and contrast, but they had quite different color biases (yellow (8.5's) vs. neutral to blue (ultravids)). Personally, I find the swarovski's much more comfortable and prefer the slow focus, so the choice of the EL's over the Ultravids is a no-brainer for me. What was shocking, however, was that I and my companions found the 32EL to clearly have greater resolution and equal brightness to both the 85EL and the 42 ultravids. And of course, much lighter and more comfortable than any of the 42's.

As I said, a very unscientific test, and admittedly no testint conducted at dawn or twighlight, but all 4 of us (all experienced birders) came to the same overwhelming conclusions: the new 32EL is an absolutely incredible binocular. For the record, I have no affiliation with Swarovski (or any other manufacturer for that matter) and indeed do not find they are the best in many categories (eg, I own Zeiss 10x25 Victories as well as the new Zess 85 Scope).

[tonrot]

Does anyone know how I, living in New York City, might be able to find a copy the recent birdwatching binoc review on the web? Is it possible that someone could post a link to it or e-mail it to me? Is it sold over on this side of the puddle?

[william j clive]

Does anyone know how I, living in New York City, might be able to find a copy the recent birdwatching binoc review on the web? Is it possible that someone could post a link to it or e-mail it to me? Is it sold over on this side of the puddle?


The 8x32 EL topped the 32 class easily. This is what they said about them:

Design - A smaller version of the 42mm models with a unique open design. Lightweight and sleek with grippy rubber armouring, supplied with nylon case, rainguards, objective lens caps, medium wide Neoprene strap and lens cloth. Waterproof and nitrogen filled.
Simply put, the testers thought these binoculars were faultless. They were supremely lightweight and streets ahead of the competition.
Small and elegant, these were extremely comfortable to hold with a natural feel. the thumb recesses on the underside had rounder edges than the 42mm model and are less extreme and deep.

Focus - The 24mm wide focus wheel was well positioned, smooth and precise. It took just one and a half turns from horizon to minimum focus.

Image - Exceptionally good with brilliant feel and excellent close focussing distance, field of view and depth of field.

Verdict - Its been a while coming, but the testers think we have a new king of the 30-32mm class. The perfect 32mm binocular?


Model- Optical- Design- Value
Swaro LE- 9.5- 9.5- 9
Leica BN- 8.5- 8.5- 9.5
Nikon LX- 9- 8.5- 9.5
Nikon SE- 9- 7.5- 9
Swaro SLC- 8- 7.5- 8.5
Zeiss BGAT- 8- 7- 8



I thought they were a bit grudging in their praise ;)

[scampo]

I should think that, in good light, both Swarovskis allow in far more brightness than your eye is able to differentiate - hence, the only time you will notice an improvement in brightness between the two would be at dusk or evening.

[tonrot]

CJ --any thanks for the interesting info. i'd still love to read the whole review if anyone has suggestions of how i might get a hold of a copy, but i suppose at this piont this "need" is simply idle compulsion.

Scampo -- i suppose you're right, i'm sure the 8.5's would be somewhat superior to the 32's at dawn/twighlight. still, personally i'd rather have the superior resolution and lighter weight of the 32's for the rest of the day....

[tonrot]

woop... meant "many" thanks...

[Leif]

CJ --any thanks for the interesting info. i'd still love to read the whole review if anyone has suggestions of how i might get a hold of a copy, but i suppose at this piont this "need" is simply idle compulsion.

Scampo -- i suppose you're right, i'm sure the 8.5's would be somewhat superior to the 32's at dawn/twighlight. still, personally i'd rather have the superior resolution and lighter weight of the 32's for the rest of the day....

Tonrot: I s'pose you could order a back issue. Try sending an email to:

emap@mercury-international.com

To be honest an earlier post by William J Clive has told you pretty much all you need to know! The reviews tend to be rather superficial, and the idea that the optics can be summed up by one number is odd. I believe that the Nikon 8x32 SE has far far better optics than the Swaro 8.5x42 EL (I own both), but the Bird Watching people would tell you the opposite! Part of the problem is that it depends what weight you give to the various aspects of the optics, build etc. In other words, you really need to try them yourself, preferably in the field.

[scampo]

Hi. I have sent you a PM on this.

[Chris Zorro]

I believe that the Nikon 8x32 SE has far far better optics than the Swaro 8.5x42 EL (I own both), but the Bird Watching people would tell you the opposite! Part of the problem is that it depends what weight you give to the various aspects of the optics, build etc. In other words, you really need to try them yourself, preferably in the field.

My partner was given a pair of Nikon 8x32 LX for Christmas and I hate to admit this, but in a side-by-side comparison all Boxing Day against my 8x42 Ultravids the Nikons were equal in my £10 NEED test and better in edge sharpness, close focus and weight. Even in the dimmest twilight the difference was only a few minutes of marginally better seeing! Anyone fancy making me an offer for the Leicas as she won't swap with me!!!

[henryting]

Chris, I tried contacting via email, but your profile does not allow it. I'm interested in your Ultravid. Please email me :
henryting@riteful.com

[scampo]

It's amazing, Chris - you're not the first to say this kind of thing. The Nikon's have now been compared favourably against the Ultravids and the Swaros. Amazing - just shows that there is bias around of one kind or another as I've never seen them so very highly praised in a birding mag.

[scampo]

My partner was given a pair of Nikon 8x32 LX for Christmas and I hate to admit this, but in a side-by-side comparison all Boxing Day against my 8x42 Ultravids the Nikons were equal in my £10 NEED test and better in edge sharpness, close focus and weight. Even in the dimmest twilight the difference was only a few minutes of marginally better seeing! Anyone fancy making me an offer for the Leicas as she won't swap with me!!!

Is the LX model the same as the 8x32 HG DCF WP on the Warehouse Express web site, Chris - I can only find a US LX Ventura?

[Chris Zorro]

Is the LX model the same as the 8x32 HG DCF WP on the Warehouse Express web site, Chris - I can only find a US LX Ventura?

Sorry, I used the US model description - and yes, they are the 8x32 HG DCFs and coincidentally, Warehouse Express is where they came from. I asked Ace Cameras if they could provide at that price (they tend to price match) but said that was well below the price they would pay wholesale!